English Learner Teacher Advocates: A Systematic Literature Review

February 2022 – Volume 25, Number 4

Leyla N. M. Norman
Texas A&M University
<leylanormantamu.edu>

Zohreh R. Eslami
Texas A&M University
<zrasekhtamu.edu>

Abstract

In this systematic literature review, we synthesize and critically analyze information from publications between 2010 and 2020 that answer the following overarching research question: What does being (or not being) advocates for English learner (EL) students look like for EL teachers? Findings indicate that EL teachers’ backgrounds and characteristics, such as gender, race, intercultural experience, and experience teaching, affect their propensity to advocate and the types of advocacy in which they engage. Additionally, we examine ways teachers advocate for their students inside and outside the classroom/school, such as changing how they instruct their EL students, and speaking up for them at district or states’ departments of education meetings. We also explore and describe conditions that support (supportive administration, prioritizing ELs in the master school calendar, collaboration with general education teachers, for example) and hinder (unsupportive administration, marginalization of ELs and EL teachers, lack of collaboration with general education teachers, for instance) advocacy for ELs by EL teachers. Recommendations for pre- and in-service teacher education programs are offered, and potential areas for future research are also discussed.

Keywords: English as a second language, English learner, English language learner, teacher, instructor, advocacy, advocate

Although the number of English learners (ELs) in the PK-12 context in U.S. public schools rose from 3.8 to 5 million between 2000 and 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020), the support to meet their academic, social, and emotional needs is anything but robust. For example, for the 2015-16 school year, 67 percent of ELs graduated from high school on time compared to 84 percent for all students, although there is a recent upward trend in EL graduations in the United States, overall (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). ELs are also overrepresented in special education programs (Becker & Deris, 2019; Hulse, 2021) and are often underrepresented in gifted and talented programs (Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012; Office of Civil Rights, 2014). In addition to academic gaps, these students face “pervasive anti-immigrant, anti-linguistic diversity rhetoric in the United States and its schools” (Linville, 2020, p. 2). They also experience depression, lack of confidence, and nervousness, among other negative emotions (Rawal & De Costa, 2019). EL parents also at a disadvantage because they may not understand the educational system and/or how to engage with it (Cranston, et al., 2021).

The lack of sufficient effective infrastructure and programs to properly support ELs necessitates an increase in advocacy efforts on the part of all who work with ELs and whose policy making affects them. This paper highlights the positive impact that advocacy efforts, particularly by EL teachers, can make in the lives of ELs by comprehensively reviewing the existing literature on the topic.

Haneda and Alexander (2015) have argued that EL teachers should “have critical awareness of the power relations” that affect their immigrant students, be “cultural mediator[s],” and advocate for ELs and their relatives (p. 151). Being an EL teacher is more than teaching language and culture: it requires supporting ELs as they navigate life both inside and outside the classroom. It is not just EL teachers that should advocate for ELs. Dubetz and de Jong (2011) have emphasized that that it is essential that all teachers of ELs should be encouraged to advocate for them.

Within the context of serious academic gaps and powerful, negative social and emotional impacts that come with simply being an EL, we conduct a systematic review of the literature surrounding EL teacher advocacy for their students to answer this main research question: What does being (or not being) advocates for their EL students look like for EL teachers? From this overarching research question, topics salient in the literature guided the development of the following sub-research questions:

1. Why is EL teacher advocacy important for ELs? What outcomes can be expected for students when teachers advocate for students?
2. What are the characteristics/backgrounds of EL teachers who advocate or do not advocate for their students?
3. How do EL teachers advocate for ELs?
4. What challenges do EL teachers face to advocate for their students? What promotes advocating?

This systematic review seeks to provide answers to the above questions by synthesizing and analyzing research done in EL teacher advocacy. To the best of our knowledge, there is no synthesized review of the literature on EL teacher advocacy, and thus our research fills this lacuna. This review’s ultimate goal is to identify ways to improve EL teacher advocacy. Additionally, gaps in the research will be identified to further knowledge of EL teacher advocacy.

In this review, we consistently use the acronym “ELs” to refer to “English Learners.” We discuss EL teachers (specifically licensed to teach English to the EL population in public schools in the United States) as well as general education/content area teachers who are teachers of ELs in their mainstream classrooms. Quotations will variously incorporate terms like “ELL” for “English Language Learner,” “ESOL” for “English to/for Speakers of Other Languages,” “emergent bilingual” to refer to ELs, and “ESL” for “English as a second language.”

The following section discusses definitions and types of advocacy as presented in the literature. Next, we share our systematic analysis approach. After that, we examine the characteristics and backgrounds of EL teachers who advocate. Subsequently, we analyze what challenges EL teachers face when advocating and highlight conditions that promote EL teacher advocacy. The final sections concentrate on implications for pre- and in-service teachers of ELs and opportunities for further research. While every idea related to EL teacher advocacy discussed in the surveyed literature cannot be examined here because of space, we try to provide highlights to give a broad sense of what is currently being discussed related to the topic.

Advocacy

Definitions, Contexts, and Agency

The reviewed literature holds several definitions of advocacy. An EL teacher Harrison and McIlwain (2020) interviewed stated that “advocacy is being aware of needs and then doing something about it” (p. 6). Haneda and Sherman (2018) defined advocacy as “acting agentively on behalf of ELs and/or their families to ensure they were treated equitably and had access to needed resources” (pp. 407–408). A further definition is given by Haneda and Alexander (2015), who defined advocacy as “acting proactively on behalf of students to ensure that they are treated equitably and have access to needed resources” (emphasis in the original) (p. 152). Linville (2014) argued that advocacy involves seeing obstacles related to ELs’ academic progress and then acting to remove or reduce their severity. This can occur in a number of ways, like discussing ways to support ELs with others who can also advocate for them.

The context in which a teacher works plays a significant role in whether and how they will act. Haneda and Sherman (2016) pointed out that how teachers enact their agency may differ depending on a particular context, such as community, school, and administration, basing their discussion on Biesta and Tedder’s (2007) discussion of the factors affecting teachers’ acting on agency. The literature (for example, Haneda & Sherman, 2018) also discusses the work of  Varghese and Stritikus (2005), who emphasized that teachers:

are not seen as ‘reproducers’ of a particular policy but are viewed simultaneously as agents who make specific choices based on their own histories and their evolving professional lives as well as being ‘constrained’ or ‘shaped’ to a certain extent by the contexts in which they find themselves. (p. 75)

Teachers’ decisions to advocate and how they advocate are not the same in any two teaching contexts or between any two teachers. To further clarify definitions of advocacy, we now turn to two advocacy dichotomies that have been among the most discussed in EL teacher advocacy literature: transformative/non-transformative and instructional/political. We also discuss transitive advocacy.

Types of Advocacy

The forms of advocacy discussed here reflect the literature about advocacy as it relates to teachers of ELs and their experiences in supporting this learner population. These teachers advocate for their students in very specific ways, and understanding the types of advocacy in which they engage can potentially help anyone who works with ELs to identify ways to support them in their own contexts. We explore transformative and non-transformative advocacy (Haneda & Alexander, 2015), instructional and political advocacy (Linville, 2014), as well as transitive advocacy (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020).

These forms of advocacy can be conceptualized in the Douglas Fir Group’s (2016) model of the Multifaceted Nature of Language Learning and Teaching. The model consists of three levels: micro, meso, and macro. The micro level of social activity involves individuals interacting with others and includes linguistic, prosodic, interactional, nonverbal, graphic, pictorial, auditory, and artifactual semiotic resources. The meso level of sociocultural institutions and communities involves social identities of language learners that involve their investment in the learning of another language, individual agency, and power. It also includes families, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, places of worship, and social organizations. The macro level of ideological structures includes belief systems, and cultural, political, religious, and economic values. The types of advocacy presented next will be explored in light of this model.

Transformative and non-transformative advocacy. Advocacy has been described as being “transformative” or “non-transformative” (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). Transformative advocacy occurs when teachers challenge policies and practices that promote inequities for ELs at the school level (such as the lack of interpretation at parent-teacher conferences) and at levels beyond their classroom (such as at district or state education department meetings).

Transformative advocacy can occur at the meso level of sociocultural institutions and at the macro level of ideological structures. For example, EL teachers can advocate for their students at the meso level such that their ELs are more included in their schools and communities. ELs’ identities are shaped by not only the real communities they are in but also by those they imagine themselves to be part of in the future (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). Another example of transformative advocacy that takes place at the meso level would be to teach ELs their rights and how to stand up for them.

When a nation values a monolingual society, the macro level policies that it enacts at the meso level can shape language assessment policies and practices, for example, which can restrict ELs’ access to higher education and affect their desire to continue to invest in learning the nation’s official language(s). EL teachers can also enact transformative advocacy to help shift macro level values as well as meso level policies, by, for instance, taking part in state and national level discussions of the societal benefits of a multilingual populace.

Non-transformative advocacy occurs when inequities are not challenged at the school or beyond the school levels (Linville, 2020). This form of advocacy may take place within the micro level of social activity and at the meso level. For instance, an EL teacher can ensure that their ELs have equitable access to curricula that can help them expand their linguistic and prosodic semiotic resources. Likewise, an EL teacher could collaborate with EL families to learn more about students’ cultures and life experiences to inform their classroom teaching and to make the school a more inclusive place for ELs.

For further discussion of types of advocacy, see also de Oliveira & Athanases (2007), Dubetz & de Jong (2011), and Trickett, et al. (2012). Von Esch (2018) provides an examination of EL advocacy by teacher leaders.

Instructional and political advocacy. “Instructional advocacy” (Linville, 2014) is like non-transformative advocacy and can take many forms, such as helping a student get accommodations on a standardized exam or encouraging content area teachers to modify assignments by using more visuals for ELs. (Throughout this review, “political” and “instructional” advocacy are often used when discussing Linville’s work, as these are her terms for these forms of advocacy.) Haneda and Sherman (2018) described non-political teacher advocacy within and beyond the classroom (discussed later). Instructional advocacy is more common than “political advocacy,” which is often, but not always, enacted beyond the classroom at the school, district, and state level and considered transformative, as discussed above (Linville, 2014).

Instructional advocacy can be enacted at all three levels of language learning and teaching (Douglas Fir Group, 2016). If it is non-transformative, it will most likely be enacted at the micro level. If it is transformative, it is more likely to be enacted at the meso and macro levels, as previously discussed.

Political advocacy can often be enacted at the school level as well, an example of which is teaching ELs their rights and to stand up for them (Linville, 2014). In the Douglas Fir Group’s model, this example would be advocating at the meso level such that an EL’s identity is impacted by the advocacy effort, and they would be able to advocate for themselves as they interact with sociocultural institutions, such as their school. Political advocacy, like transformational advocacy, is often, however, enacted at the meso and macro levels, for example, by EL teachers advocating for more equitable treatment of ELs in educational policy at the state and national levels.

Both instructional and political advocacy by EL teachers for ELs can positively affect their academic and life experiences. For instance, instructional advocacy can affect policy change in the future just as political advocacy can affect district, state, and national policy around ELs (Linville, 2014).

The literature contains many examples of instructional advocacy, such those examined next. While teachers may not be “overly politically motivated by issues of social justice,” they may see that certain structures and circumstances exist that “will continue to marginalize their students” (Suarez & Dominguez, 2015, p. 61). In their study, Suarez and Dominguez (2015) found that their participants did not try to “expose the power dynamics at work in district curriculum plans” but instead started from “caring relationships” in their work (Suarez & Dominguez, 2015, p. 61). Espinoza’s (2020) study participants emphasized that “after earning their students’ trust they will do anything for them and teaching becomes much easier after they have their trust and attention” (p. 120). They did this by valuing their background knowledge and viewing cultural/linguistic differences in a positive light (Espinoza, 2020). A math teacher in King’s (2015) study of advocacy among teachers improvised ways to help an EL learn one- and two-step equations when she did not get the support she needed from administration or the school’s EL facilitator. She “envelope[d] her newcomer ESL student into the fold of success that she created through positioning him as caring and successful in the accommodated curriculum that she improvised for him” (King, 2015, p. 61).

Transitive advocacy. Another type of advocacy is termed “transitive” by Harrison and McIlwain (2020), and it involves EL teachers working with others, such as parents, community members, and administrators, to advocate for ELs. Transitive advocacy creates possibilities for those working with ELs to share responsibility for ELs’ educational and life outcomes in classes, schools, and communities (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020). It is a form of advocacy that depends heavily on collaboration to create an academic environment in which ELs can be nurtured, develop, and thrive. Transitive advocacy, since it involves collaboration between a variety of sociocultural institutions, would most likely be enacted at the meso level of language teaching and learning.

Systematic Analysis Approach

A systematic review, according to Gough, et al. (2012), is “a review of research literature using systematic and explicit, accountable methods” (p. 2). We collected articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria to answer the research questions. During this process, ethical guidelines of our university were followed. No human participants were involved with this study.

Following Siddaway, et al. (2019), the research was divided into phases. (See also Gough & Thomas, 2012). First, a general search was conducted to identify potential articles that answer the main research question. After reading several of those articles, we narrowed research questions the literature could likely answer based on general themes present in the articles. A concurrent step was to identify other potential literature. Working with a university subject librarian, appropriate and varying search terminology was identified and narrowed.

We used three databases to locate as many potential articles as possible: ERIC, Education Source, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Furthermore, we conducted an independent Google Scholar search. Additionally, we did another independent search focusing on the author’s names to ensure that relevant literature was included. When the research process began, a general search was done through our university library to identify some articles that could potentially answer the research questions. This was done to better understand the literature in general and to identify potential keywords.

When we worked with the university subject librarian, we used specific terms and parameters in our search. In the ERIC database search, we used two concepts. Concept #1 focused on English language learners or bilingual students. (See discussion of exclusion of bilingual students and teachers below.) Concept #2 concentrated on the idea of teacher advocacy and support. The search terms are available in the Appendix.

Next, we developed preliminary inclusion and exclusion criteria as we became more familiar with the literature to specify what information we would utilize in the review (Gough & Thomas, 2012). As we reviewed the literature, inclusion/exclusion criteria (such as focusing on EL teachers and content teachers of ELs, being published in English, the study being done in the United States, etc.) were refined to narrow the focus of the review. However, the final criteria were consistently applied to the articles to determine the last set of included articles to review. (See next section for more details.)

In the first phase of inclusion/exclusion, we read the title and abstracts of identified works to determine if they met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After works were identified for potential final inclusion, we obtained the full-text versions if we did not already have them and then read them thoroughly. This comprised the second phase of the review of the literature. In the final phase, we read through the works included after the second phase of review to analyze the data that answered the main and sub-research questions. Throughout the review process, we utilized a PRISMA flow diagram to record how many articles were included at each phase of the research process and how many articles were excluded for various reasons in the second stage of review. (See Figure 1.)

When all the articles had been examined for inclusion/exclusion, we consulted with a Ph.D. student in our department to determine interrater reliability. A sample of 10 articles (either to be included or excluded in the final stage of the article-examination process) was sent to the reviewer. It resulted in an initial 90% interrater reliability. (We agreed with the reviewer on 9 out of 10 articles that were either included or excluded based on the final set of inclusion/exclusion criteria.) After discussing the point of disagreement for inclusion/exclusion, the coders agreed that the author should be included.

In addition to the search done with the subject librarian, we also conducted an independent Google Scholar search. As mentioned, we searched the name of the authors of all the articles included after the final literature review to see if any articles had been missed or if there were any relevant, in-press papers to be used for the review. We did this to help reduce any bias (Gough & Thomas, 2012). The latter search revealed two more articles that were subsequently reviewed for inclusion, but they were not included after the second phase of exclusion. Additionally, as we read the included articles after the first round of inclusion/examination analysis was complete, we read through each article’s reference sections to identify other potential articles. We did not find any such articles that were not already in the potential articles to review in the second round of inclusion/exclusion.

Furthermore, literature that was not in the form of peer-reviewed journal articles (such as dissertations, organization publications, and conference proceedings) was searched and included if it met the inclusion criteria. We included items such as interviews with EL teachers even if they were not part of peer-reviewed studies, as their statements pertained to our research topics and were rich in primary source data. A further effort was made to locate forthcoming articles by emailing six authors whose works were included in the articles’ final selection, but no relevant articles were identified.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart (Moher, et al., 2009)

Note. See discussion in Note 3 on inclusion of three dissertations not included here.

One work could not be included for screening after an extensive online search, university library search, and a request through our university library interlibrary loan system. This work was included in the second round of exclusions.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The first criterion for inclusion or exclusion was whether the studies were written in English. This was done to help keep the search criteria focused on the PK-12 public school context in the United States. Additionally, studies conducted outside the U.S. were excluded, as were those that focused on adults and PK-12 students in privately-funded education. Peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, conference papers/forthcoming articles were included in the review. However, books, reviews (for example, book reviews), and general reports were not included. Some non-peer-reviewed literature, such as primary source EL teacher interviews, was included (as discussed above).

Literature published before 2010 and after 2020 was not included. All included literature also had to be about EL teachers or general education teachers who worked with ELs. Bilingual teachers were not included in this study (discussed further below). Finally, the research focused on in-service teachers and did not include pre-service teachers to better understand what advocacy looks like in practice.

There were many pieces of literature that were excluded for more than one reason, for example, one study was about bilingual pre-service teachers, and the reason it was excluded is listed as because it focused on pre-service teachers. Another was an article that focused on advocacy by pre-service teachers, but it did not focus directly on advocacy for ELs and was thus excluded for the latter reason.

Characteristics of the Reviewed Publications

Of the 21 documents included in this review, four were dissertations. Fourteen were published in peer-reviewed journals. Four studies were mixed methods, and 12 were qualitative. Nine of the documents were published between 2016 and 2020, and six were published between 2010 and 2014. In 2015 alone, six were published. Detailed information is presented in Table 1.

The Exclusion of Bilingual Teachers

We excluded bilingual teachers from this study to better understand what advocacy looks like specifically for EL teachers in English as a second language context in U.S. public schools. Programs for ELs that are classified as “bilingual” are different in philosophy, focus, and structure than those typically classified as “English as a second language,” “English Language Acquisition,” “English Language Development,” or similarly-named programs. This article does not delve into the details of their differences. However, we want to highlight that the latter types of programs concentrate on mainstreaming students into general education classes without English language support as soon as possible. Students’ home languages are typically not included in their instruction. On the other hand, “bilingual” programs focus on supporting students’ academic development through the use of their first languages while developing the English language. The particular circumstances that face both bilingual and EL teachers and students, while similar, are not always directly comparable due to the structural, philosophical, and pedagogical differences in their programs. We feel that the experience of bilingual teachers advocating for their students is unique and should be studied in a separate systematic review. In our literature search, most publications included only EL teachers or content area teachers who teach EL students. One included bilingual teachers in their sample with EL teachers/general education teachers of ELs, and two focused exclusively on bilingual teachers’ advocacy for students in bilingual programs. These three publications were not included in the final review.

Table 1. Summary of Included Publications

Study	Purpose	Journal	Type of Publication	Participants	Method	Instruments
Brooks & Adams, 2015	How In-Service teacher education can help general education teachers develop agency and advocacy for ELs.	New Educator	Article	Approx. 162 teachers	Qual.	Conversations, written reflections, emails, school change project proposals and final reports
Cerre, et al., 2013	A plan to turn around a low-performing high school with 70% EL population	Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy	Article – Not a study	An EL administrator, high school principal, and teacher	Qual. – Not a study	Email conversation & report excerpts
Espinoza, 2020	Explores social justice for culturally and linguistically diverse students.	Kansas State University	Dissertation	Five teachers of culturally and linguistically diverse students	Qual.	Group and individual pláticas (similar to interviews and detailed in study).
Greene, 2017	Focuses on political and school/district level advocacy for ELs by one teacher.	Educational Leadership	Article – Not a study	1 teacher	Qual. – Not a study	Interview
Haneda & Alexander, 2015	Focuses on “proactive” teachers and how they advocate/their background.	Teaching and Teacher Education	Article	34 EL teachers	Qual.	Interviews
Haneda and Sherman, 2016	Job crafting at the personal, interpersonal, and institutional levels changes how EL teachers do/craft their jobs.	TESOL Quarterly	Article	1 teacher – Data is from study of 34 EL teachers.	Qual.	Interview
Harrison & McIlwain, 2020	Explores EL teachers’ experiences as advocates. Discusses idea of “transitive advocacy.”	TESOL Journal	Article	144 EL teachers – 10 semi-structured interviews	Mixed method	Survey and semi-structured interviews
King, 2015	Examines EL & content area teachers’ understandings of advocacy.	University of North Carolina at Charlotte	Dissertation	Three EL and content area teachers	Qual.	Participant observation and interviews
Liggett, 2010	Marginalization of EL teachers leads to less collaboration with general education teachers.	Teaching Education	Article	6 EL (certified & with master’s degrees)	Qual.	3 structured interviews & classroom observations
Linville, 2020	Explores why and how EL teachers advocate.	TESOL Journal	Article	511 EL teachers	Mixed	Survey
Ortíz & Fránquiz, 2017	Discusses ways EL teachers can advocate for their students and why it is important.	Bilingual Research Journal	Article-Not a study	Co-editors’ introduction (Essay)	Qual. – Not a study	N/A
Pawan & Craig, 2011	Focuses on EL and content area teachers’ online discussions about EL instruction.	TESOL Journal	Article	45 teachers: 12 EL and 33 content area	Qual.	Examination of online discussions between participants in ESL certification course at a university.
Pawan & Ortloff, 2011	Collaboration between content area and EL teachers	Teaching and Teacher Education	Article	Teachers: 6 EL, 17 content area; Administrators: 11 ESL, 16 general	Qual.	Structured interviews, and classroom/ meeting observations
Shapiro, Ehtesham-Cating, 2019	Argues for EL teachers to increase academic rigor for ELs in secondary education.	TESOL Journal	Article – Not a study	(Essay) Viewpoint of authors	Qual. – Not a Study	N/A
Schmidt & Whitmore, 2010	One teacher advocates for her ELs with her words against district-chosen commercial curricula and increased testing.	Journal of Literacy Research	Article	Case study of 1 teacher	Qual.	Case study of a  teacher’s written and oral language: rhetorical and critical discourse analysis
Siefert, et. al., 2015	To examine how an African-American teacher relates to teaching ELs.	TESOL Journal	Article	1 teacher	Qual.	1 interview and classroom observation
Thiers, 2019	How one teacher views and advocates for ELs is presented.	Educational Leadership	Article – Not a Study	1 teacher	Qual.- Not a Study	Interview
Thorson, 2020	Explores backgrounds & characteristics of teachers who advocate for ELs	Georgetown University	Dissertation	7 qual. participants; 136 quant. participants	Mixed methods	Interviews & survey

Note. Abbreviations: Quant.=Quantitative; Qual.=Qualitative; Mixed= method – Based on Linville, 2014.

In the following sections, we address each sub-question based on the synthesis of the included literature. We discuss teachers’ backgrounds and characteristics, ways teachers advocate, and what it takes to advocate. Then we explore implications of the literature and identify areas for potential future research.

Teachers’ Backgrounds and Characteristics

Haneda and Sherman (2018) stated the most critical factors related to teachers’ advocacy include “bilingual proficiency, commitment to advocacy, and willingness to negotiate with relevant personnel, including grade-level colleagues” (p. 412). Those participants in Linville’s (2014) study who felt that they were duty-bound to advocate for their ELs were more likely to engage in advocating. In their study of six high school teachers of ELs, Suarez and Dominguez (2015) noted that several teachers believed that their most important job was to care for their students, which requires advocating for them. Greene (2017) discussed a new EL teacher, who said that, after school administrators told her that she could be placed in another position “after she paid her dues,” she told the school she wanted to remain their teacher because “[t]hese students were her passion” (p. 19).

Linville (2014) found several factors that impact EL teachers’ engagement in instructional and political advocacy. (We will use Linville’s (2014) terminology for the types of advocacy: instructional and political, although, as previously discussed, “non-transformative” and “transformative,” respectively could also be used.) These include:

• If EL teachers are seen as language experts
• EL teachers perceiving themselves to be skilled advocates
• Gender
• Race
• Teaching experience
• Membership in a professional organization related to teaching ELs
• Knowledge of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) teaching standards
• Professional experiences.

These are each discussed, in turn, below.

First, EL teachers tend to engage in more instructional advocacy acts if they think they are viewed as language experts, but this is not the case with political advocacy (Linville, 2014). Furthermore, teachers who perceive themselves to be skilled advocates tend to advocate for ELs more than those who do not (Linville, 2014).

Gender, race, and teaching experience have also been shown to impact EL teacher political advocacy, according to Linville (2014), who found that male teachers reported being more engaged in political advocacy than females. Furthermore, African-American teachers stated they had more engagement with advocacy than Caucasian teachers (Linville, 2014). Thiers (2019) highlighted a white teacher who wanted to give back to her community because she “‘was treated differently and given extra advantages'” (p. 12). Another example is seen in Siefert et al. (2015) describing an African-American teacher who grew up in poverty and said she had “a heads up with some of the ESL children and other minorities” (p. 739). This teacher felt she was able to relate with ELs as she had shared common life experiences with them.

Furthermore, Linville (2014) reported that participants who had “more experience teaching and who [were] members of a TESOL-like organization report more involvement in instructional advocacy” (p. 115). The views of those who had more knowledge of TESOL teaching standards also correlated significantly and positively with political and instructional advocacy actions (Linville, 2014). Thorson (2020) found that advocacy is less prevalent among teachers with two or fewer and with 34 or more years of experience.

Education can also play a role in the propensity to advocate. Thorson (2020) found that teachers with master’s degrees tended to advocate more than those with bachelor’s degrees, but teachers with incomplete degrees at the master’s or Ph.D. level had lower reported average advocacy scores than teachers who had finished their master’s degrees. Many teachers involved in the qualitative part Thorson’s (2020) study “mentioned how their education gave them preparation or knowledge they used to adapt classroom materials for Latinx students or request services for them” (p. 97). The teachers’ educational experiences helped prepare them to act on behalf of their students. Furthermore, EL teachers’ professional experiences (such as working with other special needs populations and completing certification programs that included advocacy or culture-related coursework) positively influenced their advocacy cognition (Linville, 2014).

Multilingualism also affects EL teachers’ advocacy, as seen in Haneda and Alexander’s (2015) study in which, of the participant teachers who engaged in advocacy, most were multilingual participants who believed they should be involved with parents inside and outside of school. Most monolingual participants in the study did not think reaching out to parents was part of their responsibility (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). However, monolingual teachers with years of intercultural experience also got involved with EL families (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). Haneda and Sherman (2018) pointed out that five teachers who advocated outside the classroom for their students had extensive cultural immersion experiences” (p. 408). Haneda and Sherman (2018) stated that “three personal attributes seem to have influenced teachers’ decisions to engage in beyond-the-classroom enactment of agency: English-Spanish fluency, perceived well-developed cultural sensitivity, and desire to act as cultural mediator-advocates for ELs and their families” (p. 412).

Thorson (2020) reported that multilingual teachers “outperformed teachers with fewer reported languages in terms of advocacy in all but one case” (p. 97). Thorson (2020) went on to note that “advocacy efforts seem to be strongly linked to experiences with cultures outside the U.S. and languages other than English,” and having close familial ties to an ethnic group represented in a teachers’ EL group can also affect how they advocate for them (p. 97). On the other hand, Linville (2014) found no relation between the time teachers were outside of the country and their ability to speak more than one language and their involvement instructional advocacy. However, speaking another language was “somewhat influential” in EL teachers’ political advocacy (Linville, 2014, p. 126).

The level at which an EL teacher teaches also affects EL teacher advocacy. Political actions correlate more with teaching at the middle or high school level than at the elementary level (Linville, 2014). Elementary are more involved instructional advocacy than high school teachers (Linville, 2014).

Ways Teachers Advocate

Different Levels of Advocacy

Harrison and McIlwain (2020) identified advocacy acts at the classroom, school, and outside-of-school levels. Some examples of within-the-school advocacy include: “[l]iaise with other teacher,” “[p]articipate in a school-based team,” and “[e]nsure proper materials provided to students” (Harrison and McIlwain, 2020, p. 8). Examples of outside-school advocacy acts include: “[a]ttend meetings with families,” “[s]erve on state TESOL board, attend conferences,” and “[s]peak up at state level to state department of education” (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, p. 8). Teacher advocacy for ELs can happen in a variety of local and regional contexts and so provide support for individual ELs and ELs in general through policy changes.

Linville’s (2014) mixed-methods study involved a quantitative part in which 511 EL teachers completed a survey. The results were analyzed statistically (through analysis of central tendencies, modelling, and regression analysis). The results revealed that instructional advocacy  (Linville’s terminology) occurred completely at the school level. She further pointed out that not every political advocacy act happens outside of the school (Linville, 2014). Advocacy outside schools tends to be much less prevalent than advocacy in schools (See, for example, Linville, 2014 and Thorson, 2020). Thorson’s (2020) research suggested that teachers who scored high in one of the three types of advocacy investigated in the study (School, Self-Advocacy, and Community) were likelier to get involved in the other two advocacy forms.

Outside-the-School Advocacy

Haneda and Alexander (2015) found that 20 teachers in their study (out of 34) participated in advocacy beyond the classroom for their ELs. This happened at the school level (for example, helping ELs understand the school system) and outside-of-school (such as finding resources for EL families) (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). See Table 2 for examples of inside-the-school and outside-the-school advocacy from Haneda and Alexander (2015).

Table 2. Examples of Inside- and Outside-the-School Advocacy – Haneda & Alexander (2015).

Inside-the-School	Outside-the-School
· Helping ELs navigate the school system · Contacting ELs’ families as needed · Acting as EL experts · Assisting mainstream colleagues in communicating with ELs’ families · Assisting parents during their visits to school	· Helping ELs’ families secure material resources needed for survival · Translating documents · Navigating the bureaucratic systems, including schools with which they must interact · Providing information that might help them improve their life circumstances

EL teachers may also reach out to parents and colleagues (to build an EL-friendly environment) as a form of in-school advocacy (Pawan & Craig, 2011). EL and content area teachers of ELs can further work to transform “mainstream policy and perception regarding ELLs, [defend] learners’ rights, [advocate] for their appropriate placement, and [mentor] content area colleagues” (Pawan & Craig, 2011, p. 302). Collaboration is advocacy that can positively affect ELs in a more profound and holistic way than an EL teacher could do alone.

Beyond-the-classroom advocacy can involve helping students to prepare for college (Rawal & De Costa, 2019) and meeting with administration to ensure ELs are prioritized in the school schedule (Shapiro & Ehtesham-Cating, 2019).

Collaboration is another form of advocacy for ELs conducted outside of the classroom, and it is critical “in creating a shared vision for the education of ELs” (Ortíz and Franquíz, 2017, p. 241). Advocates also take part in the evaluation of student and program achievement to identify areas in need of improvement (Ortíz and Franquíz, 2017). Providing professional development on EL-related topics is also a critical type of advocacy (King, 2015). (See Table 3 for examples of how EL teachers have collaborated with various individuals to advocate for their ELs.)

Table 3. Ways EL Teachers Advocate by Collaborating – Linville, (2014).

Advocacy when Collaborating with General Education Teachers	Advocacy when Collaborating with Administration	Advocacy when Collaborating with Leaders Beyond the School	Advocacy when Collaborating with EL Parents
· Provide professional development · Respond to negative comments · Explain cultural differences · Explain language instruction · Get to know other teachers · Explain policies related to ELLs · Bring ELL families and general education teachers together · Call on the counselor for support.	·Raising awareness of the process of language learning ·Making changes to the schedule ·Giving suggestions on pedagogical choices ·Report problems with others ·Represent ELLs in instructional meetings ·Encourage appropriate testing of ELLs ·Make or adjust students’ schedules	·Enlist the ESOL department for help ·Go to board members for help ·Go to a community agency for help ·Enlist community members.	· Inviting families to school · Helping with decision making · Helping ELL families with advocacy · Building connection between EL families and general education teachers · Challenging administrative decisions

Outside of school, advocacy can also include working with community members and organizations, doing home visits, going to meetings with families, asking for resources at the district level, attending students’ after-school activities, serving on the state TESOL board, encouraging cultural information-sharing, and getting involved with ELs at the level of the state department of education (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020). Liggett (2010) noted that EL teachers “regularly make connections with families to learn more about students’ background education and community professionals to assist families in navigating health care, adult language classes, or school enrollment” (p. 218). One teacher in Espinoza’s (2020) research commented that:

Parent [sic] of our CLD [culturally and linguistically diverse] students always demonstrate so much respect and trust us one hundred percent to make all academic decisions about their children. I am not certain if they trust us so much because they don’t understand the education system or because I earn their respect. (p. 109)

This teacher’s reflection emphasizes the trust that EL parents have in their children’s educators. It also points out that these parents may not understand the education system, which can force parents to trust the educators. That trust may also be a result of the teacher making deliberate efforts to gain the parents’ confidence.

One bilingual EL teacher volunteered at a library part-time and as a translator and community navigator for EL parents in Haneda and Alexander’s (2015) study. Another helped his students with access to food pantries, publicly asked for interpreters for his ELs in a school assembly and helped EL parents with immigration and school issues (Thorson, 2020). Other teachers organized parent workshops and parent-teacher conferences at students’ apartment complexes (Haneda & Alexander, 2015). Two teachers in Haneda and Sherman’s (2018) study changed how they taught by moving to a co-teaching model by advocating beyond the classroom with administrators.

King (2015) discussed a participant in her study who worked with the district’s EL coordinator to try to “create teams to help the students” such that newcomers would be in SIOP classes (King, 2015, p. 93). The SIOP teachers would “collaborate for a year together to best meet the needs of our students” (King, 2015, p. 93). Having the same set of core teachers for a year, she thought, could help teachers “build relationships over time to better help [students]” (King, 2015, p. 93).

Outside-of-School Transformative Advocacy

Outside-the-school transformative (political) advocacy can take many forms. In Schmidt and Whitmore’s (2010) study, a teacher (Ms. Meyer) is also reported to have written a letter to her local newspaper in defense of ELs. Greene (2017) pointed out the featured EL teacher in their study helped start the Language Institute in the school that serves lower-level English learners in her district. Later, she started working with “an organization that supports teacher leaders as they advance changes to better serve high-needs students” (Greene, 2017, p. 19). Her advocacy efforts were multi-pronged and focused on both students on an individual level and on teacher leaders who could advocate for students academically at-risk, including ELs.

A publication in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy in 2013 included excerpts from emails between the principal at a high school with a high proportion of ELs, a teacher at the school, and the director of the district’s multilingual education department (Cerre, et al., 2013). The school needed a turnaround plan to address the low performance of its students. The teacher practiced transformative advocacy by speaking up for the needs of her students in this publication by saying:

[W]e cannot forget that 70% of our students speak a first language that is not English. While their academic achievement is of the utmost importance, we must respect their cultural beliefs and identities. (Cerre, et al., 2013, p. 358)

This teacher speaks up for culturally-relevant instruction, which can positively affect academic success (Wah & Nasri, 2019).

Another instance of outside-the-school transformative advocacy is documented in King’s (2015) research. The SIOP Civics and Economics teacher referenced above also had a conversation with their state’s secretary of education to advocate for two semesters for the course to be taught in instead of one to help her students escape poverty through education.

In-the-Classroom Advocacy

As discussed in Haneda and Alexander’s (2015) study, teachers often prefer to engage in advocacy inside the classroom due to situational constraints. In Schmidt and Whitmore’s (2010) study, Ms. Meyer utilized information she gleaned from home visits to inform her inquiry-rich teaching. This resulted in a form of in-the-classroom advocacy that empowered her to stay true to her idea of how ELs should be taught. Participants in Espinoza’s (2020) study utilized biography-driven instruction to identify the best ways to connect students to the curriculum. The SIOP Civics and Economics teacher in King’s (2015) found students to help her translate and interpret difficult concepts to her diverse classroom of ELs.

Another instance of in-the-classroom advocacy can be seen in Shapiro and Ehtesham-Cating’s research (2019), who emphasized that EL teachers can support students by helping them reach their lofty academic and professional goals by avoiding providing too much support and helping them to take steps to achieve their aims (Shapiro & Ehtesham-Cating, 2019). Thiers (2019) presented an interview with one high school EL teacher who stated that the public school system and teachers are “either too hard on them-saying we need to uphold the rigor and they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps-or we say, ‘They don’t speak English, so I’m just going to pass them along'” (p.12). Having high expectations of students is another form of advocacy by EL teachers documented in Espinoza (2020). One teacher in Espinoza’s (2020) study of five Latinx teachers who speak English as a second language and teach culturally and linguistically diverse students commented:

I like to share my story with my students, especially my students that are undocumented and they also share stories with me…They tell me that there is no reason for them to even think about even attending college since they are undocumented. I encourage them and tell them that anyone can attend college. (pp. 102-103)

A teacher’s relation of their personal stories can help ELs believe in themselves and achieve academic success.

Job Crafting

Job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) relates to how people or groups set and adjust their jobs’ limits as they accomplish their professional goals. Haneda and Sherman (2016, 2018) used job crafting to describe EL teachers’ advocacy actions. One form is role crafting, which involves making new roles, as one teacher did who interpreted at conferences with parents and helped identify cultural differences (Haneda & Sherman, 2018). Another is task crafting, which is changing “the scope or nature of tasks,” as seen in one teacher who collaborated with a teacher colleague to determine the best way to use her time to support students (Haneda & Sherman, 2018, p. 408). Finally, relational crafting is “altering the extent or nature of relationships,” as seen in a teacher who taught example lessons in general education teachers’ classrooms (Haneda & Sherman, 2018, p. 408). Five EL teachers (out of the 21) whose interviews were analyzed in Haneda & Sherman’s (2018) study categorized their advocacy as out-of-the-classroom advocacy. These teachers engaged in “role crafting (creating advocate roles) [which] led to both task and relational crafting” (Haneda & Sherman, 2018, p. 408). For instance, they supported general education teachers as EL experts and helped them by demonstrating strategies they could use in their classes.

What it Takes to Advocate

Challenges to Advocating

Marginalization. While most teachers in Linville’s (2014) study of EL teachers felt they were perceived as ESOL professionals, 31% said they thought their colleagues saw them as assistants. This perception inhibits advocacy because it limits collaboration between content area and EL teachers (Pawan & Craig, 2011). (See also Pawan & Ortloff, 2011).

When EL teachers see themselves as language professionals in their teaching contexts, their instructional advocacy actions increase (Linville, 2014). However, when they are faced with potentially taking actions involving political advocacy or “societal injustice against ELLs,” how EL teachers perceive themselves professionally is not particularly important (Linville, 2014, p. 133). EL teachers may thus feel less inclined to advocate for their ELs when they must act outside of their immediate teaching environment to tackle more complex issues that negatively affect ELs (Linville, 2014).

Content area teachers may feel frustration because their ELs are pulled out of class for EL services (Siefert et al., 2015). This leads to a feeling of marginalization among EL teachers when their work is seen as an interruption to their students’ education.

An EL teacher in Liggett’s (2010) study noted that:

A content area teacher in Pawan and Ortloff’s (2011) study remarked:

Bless her heart, yes Rayla, the ESL teacher who is one of our collaborators, was our primary translator this year. Everything we have to go out, including my newsletter, is translated. Everything. And sometimes in Ukrainian. (p. 468)

This view highlights the fact that some EL teachers are marginalized as interpreters and translators. Pawan and Ortloff (2011) noted that the marginalization of EL teachers can be “largely defined by the latter’s lack of trust in, respect for, and knowledge about the ESL teachers’ abilities and contributions” (p. 468).

A negative attitude toward ELs in schools can also be problematic. One EL teacher in Linville’s (2014) study commented that her colleagues say, “’If I went to their country, I wouldn’t get any help.’” (Linville, 2014, p. 202). Moreover, when school culture emphasizes ELs as “negatively affecting the overall rating of the school’s test performance,” it can “[contribute] to a school environment in which the education of ELs [is] not prioritized” (Haneda & Alexander, 2015, p. 156). If the school’s teaching and learning atmosphere is not positive, it can cause ELs academic performance to suffer.

Furthermore, EL teachers are often physically marginalized when they have to work in undesirable classrooms (Haneda & Alexander, 2015), in noisy spaces in areas they have to leave if someone else needs the space, and they may not have permanent classrooms (Liggett, 2010). One teacher in Liggett’s (2010) research reported feeling socially marginalized, saying she was not “a part of the [school] culture,” “separate,” and “a little bit shoved aside” (p. 227).

Scheduling. EL students can better succeed academically when administration prioritizes ELs’ scheduling so EL and general education teachers can collaborate (Shapiro & Ehtesham-Cating, 2019). Participants in Linville’s (2014) study discussed the scheduling barrier when trying to collaborate with general education teachers. One said, “‘I feel like they’re still at the same problem that we don’t have time to meet because we aren’t given common planning time. We never have the chance to talk about these things, you know? ‘” (emphasis in the original) (Linville, 2014, p. 184). Two pairs of teachers in Haneda and Sherman’s (2018) study were able to enact a form of advocacy that was important to them, co-teaching, because their principals made EL scheduling a priority in the master school schedule. Thus, teachers express their desire to have time to meet to discuss ways to support ELs and to work together in the classroom.

Standardized Testing and Educational Standards. Standardized testing requirements can also inhibit collaboration among teachers. ELs cannot achieve as well as their native-English-speaking peers due to lack of sufficient support (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011). Despite the pressure on Ms. Meyer (discussed earlier) for her students to perform well on standardized tests, which were to increase in number Schmidt and Whitmore (2010) noted that she found ways to stay true to her idea of how ELs should be taught and to advocate for them. The teacher previously discussed in King’s (2015) study also found standardized testing to be a problem for her high school Civics and Economics ELs. This teacher commented, “‘How dare you make a policy about testing, and you don’t know my kids who are a level one [in English]’” (King, 2015, p. 89). Her students passed her class but failed the state Civics and Economics exam.

One teacher in Suarez and Dominguez’s (2015) changed the details of a required research project “so that it attended to [sic] student’s personal growth and interests as well as district learning targets” (Suarez & Dominguez, 2015, p. 58). This teacher exercised agency in advocating for the student while still prioritizing required educational standards.

Lack of Collaboration. Pawan and Ortloff (2011) argued that “collaboration between ESL and content area teachers is essential if the immediate and long term needs of ELLs are to be addressed” (p. 463). Liggett (2010) highlighted that collaborating with EL teachers can give general education teachers “the information and knowledge to scaffold content area subjects, facilitate comprehension, and foster group participation for ELLs” (p. 218).

Identifying the barriers to collaboration is an important step toward removing them. These include “professional distrust and lack of knowledge for what they [EL teachers] do,” and “lack of formal processes and effective leadership” (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011, p. 469). Building positive relationships is also critical to facilitating collaboration (Linville, 2014).

Administration. Haneda and Sherman (2018) argue that, when principals support EL teachers’ job crafting efforts, such as by making ELs a priority in the school schedule, EL teachers could work with other colleagues to change how EL instruction is conceptualized and delivered. Harrison and McIlwain (2020) stated that, in their study, one participant commented that “‘when the administration puts ELLs as a priority then you know the staff will follow suit'” (Harrison and McIlwain, 2020, p. 10). Administration can make a positive difference in whether EL teachers’ advocacy efforts are taken seriously (Espinoza, 2020). Thiers (2019) discussed a high school English and English language development teacher’s advocacy when she worked with other EL teachers and an assistant principal to identify ways to support ELs and content area teachers. They also began a peer-to-peer mentoring program.

On the other hand, administration can also pose a barrier to advocacy. One teacher in Liggett’s (2010) study reported a lack of policy about how EL students are transitioned to mainstream classes. This indicated a lack of “structural support and advocacy that ELTs [English language teachers] need” for ELs (p. 226). An EL teacher in Pawan and Ortloff’s (2011) study remarked, “‘In the buildings where it’s sort of like more compartmentalized, the attitude is, ‘It’s your role to figure it out, you guys take care of it on your own. Yeah talk to Tasha in ESL, or whatever, you know'” (p. 467). Espinoza (2020) reported a participant teacher stating, “I try to be a support system and advocate for these students, but many times my ideas have been shut down either by administration or by other colleagues” (pp. 103-104). This may happen, for example, when EL teachers try to share ways to communicate and connect with EL families (Espinoza, 2020).

Advocating for ELs with administration is not without risks, as Thorson (2020) pointed out. When teachers “choose to appropriate policy and/or engage in advocacy outside their own classrooms,” it “can jeopardize their own careers in their pursuit of equality and social justice on behalf of their students,” perhaps resulting in having “discipline notes in their file” if they complain (Thorson, 2020, p. 71). Teachers can thus find themselves at odds with their administrators as they advocate for ELs.

School Culture towards ELs. A negative school culture towards ELs can be a barrier to EL teachers’ advocacy. Faculty and staff who have worked in a place longer than a new EL teacher can make it hard for them to present new ideas (Harrison and McIlwain, 2020). Greene (2017) explored a situation in which administrators told the participant interviewed that she would be able to switch to other classes after she had spent some time teaching ELs, as she was a new teacher. This speaks to the generally negative attitude in her school towards ELs.

Cultural and societal norms are also implicit barriers to advocacy as EL students are seen from a deficit perspective in the wider community (Harrison and McIlwain, 2020). Siefert et al. (2015) noted that the teacher featured in their study stated, “her colleagues often looked at English learners as unintelligent. . .’And the concept is they come in and they don’t know anything. They’re not as bright'” (p. 741). One teacher noted in Harrison and McIlwain’s (2020) research that there were a couple of teachers in her experience that were outright resistant to taking steps to support ELs. Many others, she said, were also not aware of the ins and outs of immigrants’ life in the U.S., but they were still anxious and full of tension.

This attitude often extends to the teachers themselves. Espinoza (2020) reported that Latinx teachers of ELs who were once ELs themselves “continue feeling that their ethnicity, and cultural background, are factors for not being fully supported or seen as contributors to the education system” (p. 106). If teachers must deal with this type of negative professional environment, it is difficult for them to successfully advocate for students who share the same background.

What Promotes Advocacy

For advocacy by EL teachers to be encouraged, ELs must be prioritized when administration makes decisions. Shapiro and Ehtesham-Cating (2019) maintained that “[t]he needs of these students must be at the center of conversations about school schedules, curricula, and policies, rather than being treated as an afterthought” (p. 4). Schools, districts, state education agencies, and authorities at the national level can promote advocacy for ELs by putting ELs’ learning needs front and center in educational discussions.

One way to decrease marginalization of EL teachers and to encourage advocacy is for EL teachers to get “release time and/or stipends, so that they can visit mainstream classes, meet with faculty colleagues in other departments, and review their sheltered curriculum” (Shapiro & Ehtesham-Cating, 2019, p. 3). This broadens EL teachers’ professional role so that they are included more in the institution as are their students. (Shapiro & Ehtesham-Cating, 2019). EL teachers feel that they get “the greatest support from other ESOL teachers,” so leadership-level promotion of networking among EL teachers can also encourage advocacy (Linville, 2014, pp. 110-111).

To reduce implicit and explicit resistance in schools, Harrison and McIlwain (2020, p. 14) stated that creating a concentration across schools on culturally responsive teaching is essential. In general, if teachers feel that advocacy is encouraged in their schools, they are more likely to advocate for ELs (Linville, 2014).

Implications

In-Service Teachers

The need for ongoing professional development (PD) on effective teaching of ELs for in-service teachers is apparent. As of 2008, only 29.5 percent of content area teachers with ELs in their classrooms had the right kind and amount of training to teach them well (Ballantyne, et al., 2008, p. 9). Furthermore, PD on ELs does not account for a large percentage of all PD hours teachers complete (Boyle et al., 2014, p. 1).

To help promote advocacy in schools, in-service content area teachers should learn the basics of EL advocacy and that professional development for general education and EL teachers should emphasize collaboration (Pawan & Craig, 2011). Professional development and mentorships that help “demystify the linguistic and cultural difference that exists in their schools” (Liggett, 2010, p. 228) would also be beneficial. Helping EL teachers understand that their work can include many types of advocacy roles and how to enact them through “crafting their jobs” is another way to improve advocacy for ELs in schools (Haneda & Sherman, 2018, p. 413). Additionally, creating better intercultural communication between teachers, parents, and the wider community can promote advocacy for ELs (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020).

Advocacy can also be improved when teachers better know how to create and maintain “shared responsibility with other stakeholders” and receive “specialized training in negotiating power structures in educational systems (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, p. 15). When EL teachers can identify causes and action plans to promote “equitable education of ELs,” they can further advocate for their learners (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, p. 15).

When the professional development programs that are implemented work to comprehend the exchanges between teachers’ lived experiences, “distinct funds of knowledge,” and “professional learning” instead of focusing just on what “teachers didn’t know about linguistic and cultural diversity,” they strengthen advocacy efforts in schools as well (Siefert et al., 2015, p. 745). It is important for general education teachers in EL instruction to consider the local environment and history of the population regarding race and ethnicity and how they connect with teaching ELs (Siefert et al., 2015). Collaboration between monolingual EL and “proactive multilingual teachers” could result in a kind of job training that focuses on “the development of IC [intercultural competence] and advocacy” (Haneda & Alexander, 2015, p. 157). A rethinking of professional development related to ELs that emphasizes what teachers already know and partnering between teachers with different linguistic abilities can lead to better outcomes for ELs.

An example of a professional development program that supported content area teachers’ instruction of ELs is Project Alianza in Indiana, which included a powerful element of requiring participants to design and implement a school change project focusing on ELs. It thus promoted EL advocacy in a practical, tangible way (Brooks & Adams, 2015). In the end, “Project Alianza’s school change projects empowered participants to embrace new roles as advocates and teacher leaders for improved instruction and meaningful inclusion of ELLs” (Brooks & Adams, 2015, p. 21). The project provided the outside impetus to compel them to engage in these school change initiatives (Brooks & Adams, 2015).

Pre-Service Teachers

Teacher preparation programs should also focus on advocacy (Pawan & Craig, 2011). Pre-service teachers can be taught to have have “an expanded definition of ESL teachers’ work [that includes] multiple advocacy roles and ways to enact them through crafting their jobs” (p. 413). Teaching future educators about LatinX EL equality issues can further expand and deepen knowledge about advocacy for ELs before future teachers take their first jobs as educators (Thorson, 2020).

Job crafting theory is a powerful analytical tool that can be used in TESOL teacher-education classes “since it allows one to unpack the relationship between individual and teacher attributes, contextual and structural factors, job-crafting options that are feasible in a particular instructional context” (Haneda & Sherman, 2018, p. 413). Also, teacher education programs “should encourage future teachers to identify and work in their sphere of influence, where they have a sense that their advocacy actions will be most impactful” (Linville, 2020, p. 11). These programs can also help teachers know how to comprehend and work within situations where advocacy is complex, like working in a school with a negative culture around ELs (Linville, 2014).

Teacher education programs can also show students that language learning is “a valuable and important part of the school community” instead of a deficit (Liggett, 2010, p. 228). Furthermore, pre-service teacher programs should include:

[a]n analysis of what it means to have a linguistic identity and the inequities involved in language hierarchy [to] highlight assumptions and deconstruct myths about language learning in ways that cause a fundamental rethinking of approaches to teaching, curriculum design, and evaluations of ELLs. (Liggett, 2010, p. 227)

A school environment that values linguistic identities and recognizes and works to ameliorate and resolve inequities that result from speaking languages other than English can change how ELs are taught and learn in a positive way.

These programs can also teach future teachers particular ways to build relationships and collaborate with school and district-level EL personnel (Liggett, 2010). Teacher education programs should promote collaboration skills and the building of strong collegial relationships amongst pre-service teachers (Schmidt & Whitmore, 2010). They can emphasize creating and maintaining relationships so that teachers can increase the number of people around them who back EL advocacy and improve “the ‘soft skills’ and collaboration strategies [EL] teachers will need for this work” (Linville, 2020, p. 11).

Intercultural competence (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Harrison & McIlwain, 2020) and social justice should also be included in pre-service and in-service TESOL teacher education programs (Haneda & Alexander, 2015; Linville, 2014). Furthermore, students should have the chance to discuss their experiences working with ELs and immigrants and think critically about it with their teachers’ support (Haneda & Alexander, 2015).

Teacher education programs should give pre-service teachers the information they need to advocate and “knowledge of the laws and policies related to ELLs and their rights in schools” (Linville, 2014, p. 222). They can also make use of “case studies, role-plays, simulations, and practicum/student teaching experiences to help students be aware of and cultivate these advocacy skills” (Linville, 2014, pp. 223–224). Helping pre-service teachers learn how to teach their ELs to self-advocate is also crucial in teacher preparation programs so that students know their rights and can advocate for themselves when a teacher will not or cannot (Linville, 2014). Teacher education programs should also instruct future teachers about the TESOL standards to increase the likelihood that they will advocate for students down the line (Linville, 2014, 2020).

Future Research Opportunities

The literature reviewed here offers several avenues for future research related to EL teachers and advocacy. We next discuss some recommendations for potential inquiry avenues. Future research can positively affect the experience of ELs’ educational and general life experiences.

First, more research into what factors cause teachers to enact advocacy (Linville, 2014) and those that “contribute to ESOL teachers’ successful advocacy efforts” should be conducted (Harrison & McIlwain, 2020, p. 15). It would also help to understand how EL teacher practicums and coursework can impact developing advocacy skills (Linville, 2014). The connection between “social justice awareness and the motivation to advocate for social justice goals” should also be investigated (Linville, 2014, p. 175). Research in helping EL teachers become more aware of “hidden values” in schools and how they can advocate is also needed (Linville, 2014, p. 225).

Additionally, research on how potential co-advocates build relationships would be helpful in advancing EL teacher advocacy (Linville, 2014). Furthermore, research is necessary to delve deeper into instructional and political advocacy constructs and how EL teachers determine which type to enact (Linville, 2014).

Finally, Haneda and Alexander (2015) note that there is a gap in the literature regarding “ESL teachers’ work of “‘within-the-classroom’ advocacy” and “the rare occurrences of transformative advocacy” (p. 156). Pawan and Ortloff (2011) note that they believe models that help them “explore and describe work conditions and collaborative practices already in place that go beyond the idiosyncratic attributes of individuals or organizations” is essential (p. 470). They further note the need for research on trust as it relates to teacher relationships (Pawan & Ortloff, 2011).

Global Connections

While this study has focused on “English learner teacher advocates” in the United States, we find parallels with studies in other cultural contexts. For example, in Greece, the influx of refugee, asylee, and migrant children in recent years has resulted in a government-led plan to help educate and acculturate children fleeing persecution or whose parents are looking for a better life (Fouskas, 2019). Greece has faced a crisis level newcomer influx and has taken steps at the national level to accommodate their educational and social needs. Advocacy from the top tiers of leadership has resulted in coordinated efforts to support refugee and asylee children, many of whom are unaccompanied. When teachers and other leaders advocate for language learners both inside and outside the classroom, their opportunities to succeed in life increase.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review has examined 21 studies on the topic of EL teacher advocacy, exploring why EL teachers advocate, how their backgrounds and characteristics may impact their advocacy, the ways EL teachers advocate for their students, and what hinders and promotes EL teacher advocacy. Additionally, we have made recommendations for pre-service and in-service teacher education programs, as well as future research. EL teacher advocacy plays a critical role in advancing ELs’ futures, and we hope that this review provides a solid general understanding of the current literature on the topic so that practical action can be taken to support them.

Note

A total of 682 publications were included for initial review, and 18 of these were initially included in this review of the literature. Three were subsequently added. (See discussion below). When the systematic review was nearly finished, it was discovered that the search parameters for the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses global database were not as inclusive as they could have been, according to the librarian who helped us conduct the initial search. The new search terms and parameters were as follows: (ti(teacher NEAR/3 advoca*) OR ab(teacher* NEAR/3 advoca*)) AND yr(2010-2020).

The original search parameters and terms were: ti(teacher NEAR/3 advoca*) OR ab(teacher* N3 advoca*). The original search did account for articles written between 2010 – 2020, but this was done manually to filter the original results. The other difference is that the original search used “NEAR/3” next to “advoca*” in the abstract, whereas the second search used “N3” next to this term in the same location. The result was 219 results in the second search versus 27 in the original search. Three new dissertations were identified as fitting the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. However, the three new dissertations and the 219 results were not included in the PRISMA flowchart above. The three dissertations that met the inclusion criteria have been included in the text discussion here.

About the Authors

Leyla N. M. Norman is a Ph.D. student in the Bilingual/ESL Education program in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University. Her research interests include adult education, refugee/asylee L2 acquisition, advocacy for English learners, English learner teacher education, L2 instructional methods, and sociocultural linguistics.

Zohreh R. Eslami is a Professor in Bilingual/ESL Education program in the Department of Educational Psychology at Texas A&M University. She has published more than 120 journal articles in journals such as Intercultural Pragmatics, System, ELT Journal, Modern Language Journal, Journal of Pragmatics, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, and Bilingual Education Journal.  Her research interests include intercultural communication, instructional and intercultural pragmatics, cyber-pragmatics, L2 literacy development, L2 literacy in content areas, and task-based language teaching and technology.

To cite this article

Norman, L. N. M., Eslami, Z. R. (2022). English learner teacher advocates: A systematic literature review. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 25(4). https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a8.pdf

References

Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating English language learners: Building teacher capacity-Roundtable report. National Clearinghouse for English language acquisition. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521360

Becker, G. I., & Deris, A. R. (2019). Identification of Hispanic English language learners in special education. Education Research International, 2019, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2967943

Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545

Boyle, A., Golden, L., Le Floch, K. C., O’Day, J., Harris, B., & Wissel, S. (2014, November). Building teacher capacity to support English language learners in schools receiving school improvement grants. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154004/

Brooks, K., Adams, S. (2015). Developing agency for advocacy: Collaborative inquiry-focused school-change projects as transformative learning for practicing teachers. New Educator, 11(4), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2015.1087758

Cerre, N., Alsace, T., & Gilmartin, J. (2013). Promised land?: English learners seeking refuge at Lafayette High School. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(5), 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.154

Cranston, J., Labman, S., & Crook, S. (2021). Reframing parental involvement as social engagement: A study of recently-arrived Arabic-speaking refugee parents’ understandings of involvement in their children’s education. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 44(2). 371-404.

de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for English Language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487107299978

Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19-47.

Dubetz, N. E., & de Jong, E. J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.623603

Espinoza, P. (2020). Latinx teacher advocates engaged in social justice agendas: A LatCrit perspective (Publication No. 28157778) [Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University]. ProQuest LLC.

Esquierdo, J. J., & Arreguín-Anderson, M. (2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041

Fouskas, T. (2019). Overcoming social disadvantage and inequality in social integration of migrants through education: Social policy and access to early childhood education for immigrant and refugee children in Greece in times of crisis. Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 30(1), 145-168.

Gough, D., & Thomas, J. (2012). Commonality and diversity in reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas, (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 35–65). Sage.

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2012). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas, (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 1–16). Sage.

Greene, K. (2017). When classroom practice meets education policy: Meet five teachers who’ve taken it on themselves to step out of the classroom and advocate for improvements in schools. Educational Leadership, 74(9), 16–21.

Haneda, M., & Alexander, M. (2015). ESL teacher advocacy beyond the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49(2015), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.009

Haneda, M., & Sherman, B. (2016). A job-crafting perspective on teacher agentive action. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.318

Haneda, M., & Sherman, B. (2018). ESL teachers’ acting agentively through job crafting. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 17(6), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2018.1498340

Harrison, J. & McIlwain, M. J. (2020). ESOL teachers’ experiences in their role as advocate: Making the case for transitive advocacy. TESOL Journal (11)e464. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.464

Hulse, E. C. D. (2021). Disabling language: The overrepresentation of emergent bilingual students in Special Education in New York and Arizona. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 48(2), 381–448. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol48/iss2/2

King, E. T. (2015). The figured world of advocacy in a high immigrant population urban school in the New South (Publication No. 3711674) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte]. ProQuest LLC.

Liggett, T. (2010). ‘A little bit marginalized’: The structural marginalization of English language teachers in urban and rural public schools. Teaching Education, 21(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476211003695514

Linville, H. A. (2014). A mixed methods investigation of ESOL teacher advocacy: “It’s not going in and just teaching English” (Publication No. 3624381) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, Baltimore County]. ProQuest LLC.

Linville, H. A. (2020). A closer look at ESOL teacher advocacy: What we do and why. TESOL Journal, 11(3), e00508. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.508

Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., & Altman D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

National Center for Education Statistics. (2020, May). English language learners in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp#f2

Office for Civil Rights. (2014, March). Civil rights data collection, data snapshot: College and career readiness (Issue Brief No. 3). U.S. Department of Education.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-college-and-career-readiness-snapshot.pdf

Ortíz, A., & Franquíz, M. E. (2017). Co-editors’ introduction: The central role of advocacy in ensuring excellence in education for English Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(3), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1361896

Pawan, F., & Craig, D. A. (2011). ESL and content area teacher responses to discussions on English Language Learner instruction. TESOL Journal, 2(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.259956

Pawan, F., & Ortloff, J. H. (2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2011), 463–471.

Rawal, H., & De Costa, P. I. (2019). “You are different and not mainstream”: An emotion-based case study of two South Asian English language learners. International Multilingual Research Journal, 13(4), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2019.1590906

Schmidt, R., & Whitmore, K. F. (2010). Analyzing the language of struggle in search of hope for teachers. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(4), 385–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.524859

Shapiro, S., & Ehtesham-Cating, M. (2019). From comfort zone to challenge: Toward a dynamic model of English language teacher advocacy in secondary education. TESOL Journal, 10(4), e488, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.488

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practices guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Siefert, B., Salas, S., & D’Amico, M. M. (2015). I understand the struggle: Leveraging the lived experiences of African-American teachers in TESOL. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.188

Suarez, M., & Dominguez, M. (2015). Carrying that weight: ESL teacher negotiations toward advocacy and equity. Radical Pedagogy, 12(2), 46–67.

Thiers, N. (2019). Rosie Reid on the joy of teaching English learners. Educational Leadership, 77(4), 12–13.

Thorson, R. A. (2020). Teacher positionality vis-à-vis Latinx English language learners: A mixed-methods exploration of identity, agency, and policy appropriation (Publication No. 28023303) [Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University]. ProQuest LLC.

Trickett, E. J., Rukhotskiy, E., Jeong, A., Genkova, A., Oberoi, A., Weinstein, T., & Delgado, Y. (2012). “The kids are terrific: It’s the job that’s tough”: The ELL teacher role in an urban context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.005

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Academic performance and outcomes for English language learners: Performance on national assessments and on-time graduation rates [Data story]. https://www2.ed.gov/datastory/el-outcomes/index.html

Varghese, M., & Stritikus, T. (2005). “Nadie me dijó (Nobody told me)”: Language policy negotiation and implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104272709

Von Esch, K. S. (2018). Teacher leaders as agents of change: Creating contexts for instructional improvement for English learner students. The Elementary School Journal, 119(1), 52–178. https://doi.org/10.1086/698753

Wah, Y. L., & Nasri, N. B. M. (2019). A systematic review: The effect of culturally responsive pedagogy on student learning and achievement. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(5), 588–596. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i5/5907

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118

Appendix

Database Search Terms Used

Below are the search terms used for the ERIC database search for both Concepts #1 and #2 in descriptor/subject headings, titles, and abstracts:

((DE (English language learners OR bilingual students)) OR (TI (“english learner*” OR “bilingual students”)) OR (AB (“english learner*” OR “bilingual students”))) AND ((DE (advocacy OR culturally relevant education)) OR (TI ((teacher W2 (advoca* OR support)) OR ((“culturally responsive” OR “linguistically responsive”) W2 teacher*))) OR (AB ((teacher W2 (advoca* OR support)) OR ((“culturally responsive” OR “linguistically responsive”) W2 teacher*))))

For the Education Source database, we also searched for two concepts, the first being English language learner students, and the second being advocacy. The search terms used for this database are as follows:

((SU (English as a foreign language OR limited english-proficient students OR second language acquisition OR language teachers)) OR (AB (“english to speakers of other languages” OR “english learner*” OR “english language learners” OR “limited english speak*” OR “english as a second language” OR “second language learning” OR “language teachers” OR “english as a foreign language” OR “limited english-proficient student*” OR “second language acquisition”)) OR (TI (“english to speakers of other languages” OR “english learner*” OR “english language learners” OR “limited english speak*” OR “english as a second language” OR “second language learning” OR “language teachers” OR “english as a foreign language” OR “limited english-proficient student*” OR “second language acquisition”))) AND ((AB teacher* N3 advoca*) OR (TI teacher* N3 advoca*))

The initial ProQuest search terms were as follows, with

(ti(teacherNEAR/3 advoca*) OR ab(teacher*N3 advoca*).

The following abbreviations used in the searches for all databases are detailed below:

• *-An asterisk after some terms was used to search for alternative forms of the base word.
• AB/ab-abstract
• AND-Boolean search operator
• DE-descriptor
• N-uncovers search terms “near others” in no specific order
• NEAR-finds words/phrases on both sides of the code within one to three words of each other
• OR-Boolean search operator
• SU-subject
• TI/ti-Title
• yr-year

[back to article]

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.